In Behrend et al. v. Comcast Corp., Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge John R. Padova has handed down a win to cable TV customers accusing Comcast Corp. of illegally establishing a monopoly in the Philadelphia area, recertifying a class after Comcast invoked a 2008 appeals court ruling in In re Hydrogen Peroxide Litigation to get the court to reconsider its initial decision to grant certification. In granting plaintiffs’ motion for class recertification, the court was convinced that the element of antitrust impact potentially could be proven at trial through evidence common to the class, and that there was a common methodology available to measure and quantify damages on a classwide basis.
EC Investigating Lundbeck Regarding Generic Drug Entry
January 11, 2010 – 1:08 pm
The EC is investigating Danish pharmaceutical company Lundbeck to determine whether it took improper actions intended to hinder the entry of generic citalopram, and anti-depressant drug, into European markets.
Abbott Settles Tricor Action Filed by States
January 9, 2010 – 7:28 pm
Update January 2010: Abbott has agreed to settle Tricor related claims filed by 22 states and the District of Columbia in the District of Delaware for $22.5 million.
Update April 2009: The settlement amount has increased to $250 million, and a number of cases filed by various states and the District of Columbia based on the same allegations continue to move forward.
Abbott Labs agreed to settle for $184 million numerous claims that it had blocked the generic version of its Tricor cholesterol drug. The plaintiffs, including competitors and purchasers, alleged that Abbott conspired with its French partner to file frivolous patent infringement law suits and to alter the formulation of TriCor with the intent to inhibit the introduction of a generic version.
Antitrust Claims Dismissed in Hospital Services Case
January 7, 2010 – 12:46 pm
In Little Rock Cardiology Clinic et al. v. Baptist Health et al., Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a victory for Arkansas hospital network Baptist Health and Blue Cross health insurance affiliate, in an antitrust dispute pitting physician-owned facilities against major insurers and hospital owners. The Appeals Court upheld lower court’s dismissal of the antitrust allegations on the grounds that the complaint erroneously defined the relevant product market by how consumers pay for cardiology services, which “lacks support in both logic and law.” According to the Eighth Circuit, as a matter of law, in an antitrust claim brought by a seller, a product market cannot be limited to a single method of payment when there are other methods of payment that are acceptable to the seller.
Taxi Advertising Conspiracy Suit Dismissed
January 7, 2010 – 12:27 pm
In Astra Media Group LLC v. Clear Channel Taxi Media LLC et al., Southern District of New York Judge Naomi Buchwald dismissed with prejudice an antitrust suit against Clear Channel Taxi Media LLC filed by Astra Media Group LLC, alleging that Clear Channel attempted to establish a monopoly on the rooftop advertising on New York City taxicabs. The Court found that 1) the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that Clear Channel violated antitrust laws by communicating with the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) about rooftop advertising systems; 2) any allegations raised from the e-mails exchanged by Clear Channel and TLC regarding the rooftop advertising mechanisms were “so conclusory and undefined that they are insufficient to establish the presence of a conspiracy; and 3) the plaintiffs could articulate no motive or incentive on the part of the TLC that would make such a bare allegation of conspiracy at all plausible.
Price-Fixing Suit Against DSM Rubber Units To Move Forward
January 7, 2010 – 12:03 pm
In In re: Ethylene Propylene, District of Connecticut Judge Stefan R. Underhill refused to dismiss antitrust allegations against two subsidiaries of multinational manufacturing company Royal DSM NV, alleging that the defendants fixed the price of ethylene propylene diene monomer synthetic rubber used in the auto and roofing industries. The Court rejected the defendants’ contentions that the class of direct purchasers relied on hearsay rather than fact when implicating the DSM units, and held that “the plaintiffs have presented enough evidence of meetings and discussions about the price increase for EPDM and capacity issues in the North American market between supposed competitors that a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the defendants were engaged in illegally collusive behavior, and that the DSM defendants were active participants in that conspiracy.”
EC Pursues Banana Cartel
January 5, 2010 – 6:01 pm
The European Commission has issued a Statement of Objections to a number of companies that import and marketing bananas. The objections relate to the companies alleged participation in a cartel.
Banks Settling Cardholder Arbitration Antitrust Case
January 5, 2010 – 5:57 pm
In multi-district litigation centered in the Southern District of New York, Capital One has joined Bank of America, Citibank, Chase, and HSBC in settling a case alleging that the card issuing banks agreed to require cardholders to agree to arbitrate any disputes and to prohibit class actions. The settlements agree not to enforce arbitration provisions for a certain period and not to conspire to require them, but the banks deny all wrong-doing.
Termite-Killing Products Price Fixing Conspiracy Case Dismissed
January 4, 2010 – 2:55 pm
In Valuepest.com of Charlotte Inc. et al. v. Bayer Corp. et al., a termite-killing products price-fixing conspiracy case, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny the plaintiff’s motion to correct the judgment under Rule 60 on the ground that the plaintiffs abandoned the issues of abandonment and mandate, raised in their motion to correct the judgment, by failing to mention these issues in the argument portion of their opening brief and only mentioned them in their reply brief. Because the court does not normally consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief, it affirmed the Western North Carolina District Court’s order without hearing oral arguments.